Transport Assets and Workforce

Transport Assets and Workforce

Production of Documents: Order

The Hon. NATALIE WARD ( 14:43 :21 ): I move:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 21 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents created since 28 March 2023 in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Treasurer, the Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy, the Minister for Regional Transport, and Minister for Roads, Treasury, Premier's Department, the Cabinet Office, Transport for NSW, Sydney Metro, Sydney Trains or Transport Asset Manager of New South Wales relating to transport asset, workforce and operations management:

(a)all documents relating to asset or services plans, including asset management, strategic asset or services plans for Transport for NSW or each of its operating units;

(b)all documents relating to timelines or procurement costs to replace existing transport assets, including buses, ferries, light rail vehicles, trains or metro, over the next 20 years;

(c)all documents relating to timelines or procurement costs of transport assets for new projects, including buses, ferries, light rail vehicles, trains or metro, over the next 20 years;

(d)all documents relating to timelines or maintenance costs of existing transport assets, including the train network, track, buses, ferries, light rail vehicles, trains or metro, over the next 20 years;

(e)all documents relating to Transport for NSW workforce projections, workforce planning, changes to workforce structure, operating model changes, redundancies or current or future workforce supply;

(f)all documents relating to briefings provided to the Secretary of Transport for NSW or the Minister for Transport regarding the procurement of any new transport assets;

(g)all documents relating to briefings provided to the Secretary of Transport for NSW or the Minister for Transport regarding the replacement of any existing transport assets;

(h)all documents relating to briefings provided to the Secretary of Transport for NSW or the Minister for Transport regarding the maintenance or projected maintenance costs of existing transport assets;

(i)all documents relating to briefings provided to the Secretary of Transport for NSW or the Minister for Transport regarding changes to the Transport for NSW Operating Model; and

(j)any legal or other advice regarding the scope or validity of this order of the House created as a result of this order of the House.

This call for papers applies to documents that are in the possession, custody or control of a variety of agencies within the Transport cluster and related government departments. The Government did not suggest any amendments to this motion under Standing Order 52. It just said a hard no: "It's too big, and we won't do it." That seems to be the narrative in this place every time: "There are thousands of papers. This is terrible. This is so much work for Transport. It's insurmountable. It can't be done." Yet that is never what comes back. It is a pantomime of drama in the Chamber, acting as a protection racket for accountability, and a stone wall if we ask a question. With its focus on transparency, the Government should have no issue with supporting the motion.

There are three parts to any successful transport agency: people, a plan and performance. To be clear, the motion relates to some serious documents that are required to be maintained by Transport and its agencies. The documents are there. To be clear to the responding agencies, the documents include business case reports, other reports, procurement costs, correspondence, communications and contracts as they apply to the asset base that is controlled by Transport for NSW, including buses, ferries, light rail, trains and metros. It relates to a serious matter: How do those assets need to be replaced? What is currently funded? What is unfunded? Frankly, what is the plan?

We have already seen how procurement has gone wrong under this Government. We have seen its notice about local manufacturing but, in fact, the Government slaps a sticker on it and calls it Australian made. It says, "Let's build it in New South Wales", until after the votes are counted. Now buses are being built in Malaysia instead of Maroubra, and the Government is proud of it. It is lauding it. The Government should have nothing to hide here. To quote the Treasurer, who, in a past life, was the shadow Treasurer, "We have a new Minister who was talking about his new-found love for train manufacturing in New South Wales relative to his predecessors. But it is time to see whether the rhetoric matches the actions and whether that is the case as it applies to buses, ferries, light rail vehicles, trains and metros." Those are the Hon. Daniel Mookhey's words.

The promise to build the Tangara fleet onshore is in tatters. The promise to build buses in Nowra saw them come off the ship from China. After a lot of talk, this Government gives the least detail ever when it comes to transport. Sydney Metro West is delayed for no apparent reason. Sydney Metro Southwest is delayed and, when asked in estimates hearings, the Minister could only say, "It's complex." If a commuter wants to know when it will open, it might be any day in 2026. Just pick one. No-one really knows about the M6 Stage 1. The Government cannot confirm if it will even finish the project. It is completely unclear what is going on with Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport, which is heading for another Labor stuff-up. We should therefore get to the bottom of what Transport for NSW is planning when it comes to the replacement, maintenance and planned procurement of key assets. We should take every opportunity to understand this Government's rhetoric, its plans and, ultimately, its potential inaction. Therefore, as a House, we should engage our powers to see exactly what the transport department is up to.

I also touch on the matters concerning workforce in the motion. I have extremely mixed feelings about what is going on in Transport. I agree that it is a dysfunctional organisation with, at times, a culture without accountability, and the Government should have the right to design its workforce as it sees fit. However, I question the recent cuts and how those operational changes will help commuters. That is what good transport policies are about: commuters today and investing for tomorrow. The Government again says, "We're cutting nearly 1,000 staff", and apparently nothing is going to change. One in 15 staff at Transport for NSW was apparently doing nothing, according to the Government's spin. Everyone knows that is not true. But, rather than be honest with the people or even the Opposition, it is silence and spin. It has taken Transport 2½ years to achieve reductions in the senior service of the department, and it could not get there, but somehow it can now remove nearly 1,000 people in under six months and everything will be sweet.

Commuters, this House and the public should understand what is going on and why, and how it will impact them. Where are we heading with these cuts? It is the Mookhey mirage. There is an election in 18 months, and we know that the Treasurer is already planning the economic mirage he will take to the people. He has told the agencies, "Cut staff. Stop investment. I need to sell everything so it is all sweet at the next election." We would get more honesty at a second-hand car lot than we are getting from this Government on its plans and decisions for Transport and the budget. The call for papers will illuminate what is on the agenda, off the agenda or being ignored.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) ( 14:48 :48 ): I do not have time, in my short contribution, to fact check a number of the statements made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition. However, they contained a number of errors, a number of deliberate misstatements and a range of rhetorical exaggerations. The Government will oppose the motion and suggest a number of amendments. The motion seeks an extensive range of documents relating to the management of transport assets, workforce and operations. It provides only 21 days for compliance. Paragraphs (a) to (e) of the order cover five separate topics, each of which would be more appropriately dealt with as a separate motion. Paragraphs (f) to (i) will also capture a large number of documents.

The preliminary estimate from Transport for NSW is that the order may be three to four times the size of the 2024 order for papers relating to government‑initiated transport and road reviews. The Opposition gave a similar speech in debate on that call for papers, saying that it would not produce a large number of documents. In response to that order, Transport for NSW produced 28,619 documents in 61 boxes and incurred almost $200,000 in external costs. The preliminary advice is that this order for papers is three or four times as big. The Government is still seeking more information from the agency about it, but that is what it has received.

As I have said before in this place, the advice of the Solicitor General and Ms Mitchelmore dated 9 April 2014, which has been tabled in the House and published, notes:

It would be reasonable in our view, to query or dispute an order that contained impractical deadline or referred to no specific subject matter in relation to the documents sought … or referred to a subject matter that was so broad and unwieldy as to place great practical difficulties on compliance.

The Government's case is that this motion, in the broad way that it is drafted, goes beyond the test of what is "reasonably necessary". The Government would like to request more time in order to be able to assist agencies to comply with the motion in this form.

I signal that the Leader of the Government and I have been working hard to insist that agencies comply. This motion will be very difficult to comply with in the time frame, particularly in relation to Sydney Trains. I have to be very frank: I have given Sydney Trains one goal, and that is to improve reliability on our train system. For a call for papers to be directed at an operational agency in this form—an almost undirected missile—is of concern. I place those Government concerns on record. As I have said, the Government wishes to request more time in this matter to be able to gain additional agency advice. Accordingly, I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until a later hour of the sitting.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD ( 14:51 :50 ): The Opposition opposes the motion by the Hon. John Graham. There has been no conversation and no courtesy of letting the Opposition—or me, as the mover of this motion—have any idea that there was a plan to move an amendment or a request for additional time. The honourable member and I had a conversation last night; we deal with each other quite honourably. But there was no discussion of amendments or requests for additional time. Furthermore, on private members' day, I think it is very unfair to members who have items on the business list to ask that this debate be adjourned when no indication of that has been made, either to the office of the Leader of the House or to me directly.

It has been done on the fly and at the last minute to try to wear down crossbench members in the meantime. We know what this is. It is not new. This is a Standing Order 52 motion that was based, very clearly, on one moved by the Hon. Daniel Mookhey when he was in opposition. It should be no surprise, and the fact that there are many documents is a result of the Government's failure to answer questions during question time and at budget estimates. Plenty of opportunity has been given. The Opposition has been driven, frankly, to this point where it is obliged, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, to ask this question. Opposition members strongly oppose any attempt to distract the House into giving the Government more time on this item.

The Government should simply agree with this motion. The Government is well acquainted with how Standing Order 52 motions work. Some courtesy should have been afforded to me, as the mover of the motion, to discuss additional time and amendments and to give an opportunity for us to work this out, as we have many times. I have agreed to tranches in the past. I have agreed to additional time. But none of that has been done. It is discourteous to honourable members to move such a motion on the floor of the House. I suggest that we put the question and move on. I oppose the motion to adjourn the debate.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN ( 14:54 :00 ): The motion moved by the Hon. John Graham is a surprise to The Greens as well. We do not support it. What we do support when it comes to motions under Standing Order 52 are genuine attempts to narrow the scope, if parties can come to that, by looking at what has been done and accepted by the House before and the reason for it. I acknowledge the contribution by the mover of the motion regarding the lack of information that came to members on a range of questions around various transport services, assets and timelines on any of the existing transport projects. We got nothing. We got no inclination even of years, let alone anything more concrete than that.

I have looked at previous calls for papers moved in this place by Government members when they were in opposition, particularly, as members talk about, those moved by the now Treasurer. As members know, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey moved a huge number of motions under Standing Order 52 in opposition, and they were very extensive. One motion he moved on 11 May 2022 called for:

… all documents, including correspondence, communications, contracts, memorandums of understanding, business case reports or other reports, relating to the timeline and procurement cost to replace existing transport assets, including buses, ferries, light rail vehicles, trains and Metro, over the next 20 years …

The next point related to "transport assets for new projects, including buses and ferries, over the next 20 years"; that is slightly different. The motion went on to call for:

… all reports, analysis, modelling, or briefings relating to workforce projections, workforce planning, or current or future workforce supply …

Admittedly, the motion before the House does contain more. But I do not think there is any difference between the scale of what the Hon. Daniel Mookhey has asked for in the past and what Opposition members are doing now—which is, indeed, what The Greens are calling for in some of our documents. I note that during debate on the prior motion that I have referred to, the then Government moved an amendment to allow 42 days for compliance. I thought that was what Minister Graham was about to do—move an amendment for an extended time frame, which The Greens would support—as opposed to trying to kill this altogether, which is frankly quite extraordinary.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Minister for Climate Change, Minister for Energy, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for Heritage) ( 14:57 :40 ): I will speak to the motion.

The Hon. Mark Latham: Abusing the standing orders! Filibuster!

The Hon. Wes Fang: What are you doing?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If members would like to speak, they are able to seek the call. I encourage them to do so. I know that Deputy President the Hon. Taylor Martin would definitely give members the call if they stood up and asked for it, rather than waiting for me to open my mouth so they can interrupt me. I make a short contribution in relation to the motion. Let us be honest about the way we talk about Standing Order 52 motions. When those opposite were in government, they made a range of comments about what we were doing in opposition. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and we are trying to work through that. The point I make is that the motion is extremely wide.

I might have told this story to the House previously. Quiet a long time ago, when I was a shadow Minister after 2011, I recall moving a call for papers about buses and bus contracts. All I say is this: Be careful what you ask for. I do not know if he ever watches these things, but at the time Duncan Gay said to me, "This is going to be ridiculous. You are going to get too much information. You are not going to get the information that you are actually seeking. Can we have a conversation about how reasonable or not this is?" Silly me said no. And what was returned? I cannot remember the total number of boxes, but I think in the privileged stuff there were over 400 boxes.

The Hon. Chris Rath: Point of order: The question that is currently before the House is not the substantive motion under Standing Order 52, but whether that motion should be adjourned. It is all well and good to talk about what happened under the previous Government or in opposition in the past and the general nature of Standing Order 52 motions, but the specific question at the moment is on the adjournment of the motion. I ask that the Leader of the Government and any future filibuster speakers focus on the question of adjourning the motion.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: I was getting to the point around the adjournment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Taylor Martin ): I encourage the Leader of the Government to do so.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The point is that adjourning the motion would allow a proper conversation with the members seeking material under Standing Order 52 so that we can narrow it. There was actually a point to the story that I was telling, which is directly relevant to the amendment before the House, and that is all of us are busy. All of us are trying to do our job. Those in opposition are trying to scrutinise the decisions that are made by this Government. They do so through Standing Order 52. We all do that. That is actually our job and it is absolutely appropriate. But it is worth spending the time to try to work through. I understand that, at the end, sometimes you just do not agree and sometimes you are bloody-minded and decide that you are just going to put it up anyway because you can and you have the numbers. We all do that. Let us not pretend that any of us are pure of heart in relation to this. You do what you can do. But I know, in opposition, you do not have a lot of staff or a lot of time, and you spend time working with particularly willing Ministers—and particularly upper House Ministers.

We accept and understand the role of this House. We accept and understand the importance of motions under Standing Order 52. As Opposition members remind us, we used them a lot, and we used them pretty effectively. But we also learned some lessons along the way. There is concern in relation to this. I encourage members to support the amendment for further discussion. The Government is not attempting to stop it. There is an attempt to try to narrow it. It is so broad. As someone who once got 400 boxes in privileged material, let alone the rest—most of it was unintelligible because there was a whole lot of very detailed information—it was not what I was looking for. It was not what we were trying to seek and it was not what I was trying to scrutinise from opposition. I tip my hat to Duncan Gay. He was right. We are asking for a bit more time so that we can try to work it out. Otherwise, those opposite can look forward to thousands of boxes of material that is not actually going to help.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM ( 15:02 :46 ): Day by day, this Government increasingly reminds me of Ronald Biggs, who arrived in South America one day with no history. He just lobbed there. He had never done anything wrong. He had no past. He just wiped the slate clean. This is a Labor Party that now pretends it never criticised the public servant, never used privilege to make allegations, and never sought a lengthy, detailed Standing Order 52 motion—no history, no past. It just arrives here today without any concern for time.

The Hon. Natalie Ward: Clean hands.

The Hon. MARK LATHAM: Clean hands, cleanskins, little angels with halos over their heads. Look at them smirking about it. They know what I am talking about. The truth is, for those who were not here, in opposition, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who built a library upstairs—not many of us have a library named after us, but he built one—sought documents about the Transport Asset Holding Entity [TAHE] that would have filled a couple of railway carriages. That is the truth of it. He was diligent, effective, relentless—a real terrier. Of course, these are just matters of fact.

The TAHE pursuit by Mookhey was effective politics and, I think, effective public policy, and it exposed a genuine accounting rort of the former Government. We cannot have this argument that the now Opposition cannot call on too many documents. It is a bit rich for the Leader of the Government to say that, because she made a mistake with a motion under Standing Order 52 in 2011, we cannot support this one in 2025. If there are a lot of documents, it builds on the Mookhey precedent. No-one ever believed that Ronald Biggs had just dropped into South America one day, and I am afraid we are not believing John Graham either.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Taylor Martin ): There being no further speakers, the question is that the motion of the Hon. John Graham be agreed to.

The House divided .

Ayes13

Noes20

Majority7

AYES
Buckingham	Kaine	Nanva (teller)
Buttigieg	Lawrence	Primrose
D'Adam	Moriarty	Sharpe
Graham	Murphy (teller)	Suvaal
Jackson

NOES
Boyd	Hurst	Mitchell
Carter	Latham	Overall
Cohn	MacDonald	Rath (teller)
Faehrmann	Maclaren-Jones	Roberts
Fang (teller)	Martin	Ruddick
Farlow	Merton	Ward
Higginson	Mihailuk

PAIRS
Donnelly	Barrett
Houssos	Tudehope
Mookhey	Munro

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

The Hon. BOB NANVA ( 15:13 :30 ): The order for papers, as drafted, is extremely broad. It covers five major and distinct topics: asset planning, asset replacement costs, new investments, maintenance costs and operating model plans. Each of these alone would require a significant search effort. Taken together, the scope is excessive. Each of the 56 branches in Transport for NSW is required to prepare an asset plan, meaning custodians across every branch would need to be searched. There is also a dedicated branch and a separate agency for asset management and long-term planning, which would also entirely fall within the scope. This would result in an unmanageable and unimaginable number of documents being captured. In August 2024, Transport for NSW produced 28,619 documents in 61 boxes in response to a Standing Order 52 motion relating to transport reviews. That effort required two tranches over five weeks, 4,500 staff hours and almost $200,000 in external costs. This order would be three to four times that size, which is a completely disproportionate demand on public resources.

Many of the documents produced in 2024 would arguably fall under this new order, which creates a duplication in work. For context, the bus procurement order for papers in May this year produced nearly 13,000 documents and cost around $250,000. The Government's advice is that, scaling those numbers up, this current order could potentially cost close to $1 million to service, money that would be better spent on frontline services rather than on document collation. Paragraphs (f) to (i) are narrower and more manageable if limited to actual ministerial briefings rather than "all documents relating to". I move:

That the question be amended by omitting paragraphs (a) to (e).

This would allow production of finalised documents without trawling through drafts and working material. Even then, many of those would be subject to Cabinet confidentiality. Standing Order 52 motions are an important accountability mechanism, but they have to be proportionate. As drafted, this order is unreasonably broad, duplicates past Standing Order 52 motions and imposes an extreme burden on agencies at extreme public expense. An amended order, as I have proposed, focusing only on final briefings rather than all documents, would strike a balance between transparency and practicality.

The Hon. STEPHEN LAWRENCE ( 15:16 :32 ): I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "21 days" and inserting instead "42 days".

The rationale for the amendment is that the order captures an extremely large volume of documents across multiple branches and agencies. A 21-day time frame is simply unrealistic, given the scale of work required. In August 2024 Transport for NSW required five weeks to produce 28,619 documents in response to a Standing Order 52 motion relating to transport reviews. That effort involved 4,500 staff hours and almost $200,000 in external costs. The current call for papers is assessed to be three to four times larger. Expecting it to be completed in 21 days is simply unreasonable. For public servants to meet an unworkable 21-day deadline would require extraordinary resourcing at significant taxpayer expense. The House has previously agreed to extended time frames where the scope of orders was significant. This is not unusual; it is a recognition of the scale of the work and the need to respect both transparency and operational reality. For these reasons, the House should agree to extend the time frame to 42 days.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) ( 15:17 :57 ): I speak to the amendment to place a couple of things on the record. Firstly, I am the first to confess I have moved a number of calls for papers in this House. I make the distinction between this motion and something like the inquiries into the then Transport Asset Holding Entity, a much less operational agency than Sydney Trains. As the Minister for Transport, that is my real concern. If there is something being pursued, that is fine. But a dragnet on Sydney Trains is a problem because I have given them one direction: Improve reliability. I wish to be up-front with the House about that. The second difference is that when those documents were produced, members of the then Opposition read them. One of my issues here is that many of those 61 boxes that were produced have gone untouched by human hands; they have not been read. That is a tip I give to the Opposition.

The Government position is that the motion is broader than is reasonably necessary for the House to exercise its powers. To assist the House, we requested a short extension, which was denied. We are moving amendments, particularly to extend the time, which would be extremely helpful so we can assist the House. Finally, I encourage members to consider the amendment of the Hon. Bob Nanva. It would allow the House to call for briefings, but not all documents, particularly in relation to Sydney Trains. That would be of real assistance. With those comments, I commend the amendments to the House.

Ms CATE FAEHRMANN ( 15:20 :02 ): The Greens believe that an extension of time is absolutely warranted. As I put on record before about the history of negotiation and compromise between different parties on Standing Order 52 motions, the previous Government regularly suggested changing 21 days to 42 days. That was often agreed to by the former Opposition. We support 42 days, but The Greens do not support the amendment of the Hon. Bob Nanva to substantially reduce the motion's scope by essentially removing half of what it does.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD ( 15:21 :12 ): In reply: With regard to the amendments, firstly, it is highly unusual that we would agree to cut out half the motion on the run or to confine the scope to ministerial briefings when not a lot has happened in Transport. Secondly, asset management plans do not go to Cabinet. That is just plain wrong. This motion was put to the Government with plenty of time. It had the opportunity to make amendments. It did not do so until the motion was before the House. It is seeking time to work on the crossbench to remove half the motion. We oppose the amendment of the Hon. Bob Nanva.

We know we are onto something when there is a strong reaction. When Government members are scurrying around on level 11 seeking engagement from upper House members, it is clear they want nothing less than to produce documents. Before the election, they were busy talking about transparency and accountability. Now, they are sighing under the weight of thousands of documents. It is quite gobsmacking that the Hon. John Graham did not speak to me about a single amendment, not even in relation to time. We had a conversation, but neither an amendment to time nor any substantive amendment was in any way, shape or form mentioned. All the Hon. John Graham had to do was raise it with me. He knows where my office is. He knows my phone number. I am very open to discussions; I welcome them. If he thinks he put anything to me other than "no", I invite him to correct the record now in the House and make it clear.

This Government has had all of last night and eight hours today to raise its concerns with me. It has not done so—not a single member. I am happy to share my phone number, if Government members say I am not available or for some other reason, but there is no reason. I thank those honourable filibusterers who made contributions, but there are no sensible amendments. This simple call for papers is required because of the Government's conduct in not providing answers at budget estimates hearings or in question time to sensible questions about large projects—billions of dollars of projects in New South Wales—for which we have no answers. "It might be open in a year. It might not. We do not know." Yes, they do know. Yes, the documents are there. We know they are.

It is clear that we are onto something. We will continue to ask questions. I do not mind if I have to sit around all summer to create the Ward-Sinclair Hill library. I am happy to do that, because it is important that this Government knows we are onto it. It can cut ribbons on the good projects, but it is about delivery, and delivery requires timelines, asset management plans, investment, requests for tenders, and all of those things—other than the press releases—that make infrastructure come to life. We will continue to ask these questions. I will sit around all summer long and go through the documents. I welcome conversations going forward. I place on record my thanks to Sinclair Hill for his tenaciousness in these matters.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Taylor Martin ): The Hon. Natalie Ward has moved a motion, to which the Hon. Stephen Lawerence and the Hon. Bob Nanva have moved amendments. The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Stephen Lawrence be agreed to.

Amendment of the Hon. Stephen Lawrence agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Bob Nanva be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes13

Noes20

Majority7

AYES
Buckingham	Kaine	Nanva (teller)
Buttigieg	Lawrence	Primrose
D'Adam	Moriarty	Sharpe
Graham	Murphy (teller)	Suvaal
Houssos

NOES
Boyd	Hurst	Mitchell
Carter	Latham	Overall
Cohn	MacDonald	Rath (teller)
Faehrmann	Maclaren-Jones	Roberts
Fang (teller)	Martin	Ruddick
Farlow	Merton	Ward
Higginson	Mihailuk

PAIRS
Donnelly	Barrett
Jackson	Tudehope
Mookhey	Munro

Amendment of the Hon. Bob Nanva negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the bells for one minute?

Leave granted.

The House divided.

Ayes20

Noes13

Majority7

AYES
Boyd	Hurst	Mitchell
Carter	Latham	Overall
Cohn	MacDonald	Rath (teller)
Faehrmann	Maclaren-Jones	Roberts
Fang (teller)	Martin	Ruddick
Farlow	Merton	Ward
Higginson	Mihailuk

NOES
Buckingham	Kaine	Nanva (teller)
Buttigieg	Lawrence	Primrose
D'Adam	Moriarty	Sharpe
Graham	Murphy (teller)	Suvaal
Houssos

PAIRS
Barrett	Jackson
Munro	Donnelly
Tudehope	Mookhey

Motion as amended agreed to.